Thu 13 May 2010
the future, second verse
Posted by bon under pondering stuff, social media meta stuff
[29] Comments
sometimes, if i hold my head right, i like to pretend i can see through time.
i’ve been taking an open, online course in Education Futures these past few weeks. Dave’s one of the instructors, along with the luminous George Siemens. it’s a heady ride. there are 700+ participants, though the majority mostly lurk – but still, the experience is slippery, decentered, enormous and fascinating. it’s free. there are no grades, which is probably good, as i suspect Dave would enjoy nothing more than to give my Lisa Simpson ass a nice flat D for once. what you take out of it is not only what you put in, but what roads you choose to navigate, what conversations you choose to be in, which fellow classmates you choose to engage with. it reminds me of the blogosphere, and this blogging “experience” that is really thousands of separate experiences contextualized by a few common parameters.
education futures isn’t about predictions. it’s about perceiving trends and shifts, conceiving of how they intersect and influence each other to impact humans and behaviour and norms. it’s a semi-informed guessing game, a Gladwellian enterprise based on perceiving what is and reconfiguring the way it’s interpreted, until possibilities open and – maybe – everything looks radically different.
our social media personae are made up of the perspectives we bring to these online skins, these avatars by which we negotiate identities and connections out here, in the virtual.
you know me as a mommyblogger. however awkward that skin is, i cannot say it does not fit. my voice inhabits it, has grown to fill it, has used its maternal contours to speak into being a child whom those who know me only in my physical skin seldom get to see. my motherhood in all its complexities is the platform on which i’m grounded, both in my online and day-to-day lives.
i am also an educator, whose work and thought are predominantly shaped by the contexts of higher education and the online communities centering around educational technologies and theory. i think of education as a social and societal experiment. generally, i think of blogging the same way.
it’s where these two perspectives come together that i catch a teensy whiff of what smells like the future.
in my grand decline, when i look back over mint juleps and maribou slippers to dissect the ‘blogging revolution’ of my long-faded 30s, i think two things will stand out vividly.
first, Virginia Woolf was right.
a room of one’s own matters, and is a condition necessary to creation. what Virginia missed was that the room doesn’t need to be an actual office or garret or physical space, nor does it matter if the would-be writer’s physical space and life are crowded with small bodies. these are fodder, rich and full of marrow.
the chance to narrate said fodder into a room of one’s very own, a virtual shelter for one’s words & stories & a persona beyond the bounds of Barney and chewable books? has mattered. and freed from the gatekeeping and market pressures of traditional publishing systems, the opportunity for parents to build these little birdhouses for their souls has created an explosion. said explosion – and the nature of its particular technologies, which permit an etiquette of commenting and linking and personal advocacy & promotions – have resulted both in an unprecedented meld of brand & identity, and a brave new world in which communities and networks are able to truly transcend space and time.
in the educational futures conversation it’s easy to miss the branding and identities part of the picture, whereas in the parental corner of the blogosphere, sometimes one is left wondering whether there’s really anything else going on at all. as blogs have become increasingly business-focused and the concept of self as brand has become ubiquitous, many of us have learned enough to confidently blather on about SEO optimization and concepts like earned media and how to promote small businesses through social media.
but what particularly interests me is that as our children grow up in families and communities permeated by these concepts of identity and interaction, they’ll bring these implicit understandings of what it means to be a self into their classrooms. and if we are to shape our archaic, industrial-era education system into something relevant to their perspectives on the world and on their futures, we ought to be ensuring that our classrooms enable students to build rooms of their own, and share them, and through them interrogate the assumptions of market, knowledge, and identity that our culture reflects and reifies.
the other thing that i think will leap to the foreground of the picture when we look back at this first decade of blogging through the mists of time: our concepts of privacy are about to be blown wide open.
i love cities. i love to walk in cities. the bigger and more anonymous the better. i pound the pavement and imagine i could be anybody, because all the other anybodies slipping by me could be anybody too, and maybe the most fascinating interaction in the world is about to take place in a glance. cities, for me, are near-infinite networks of possibility, without the glare and responsibility of being known.
anyone who grew up in a small town knows what it is to be known. “cherish your reputation,” my dear mother always told me, by which i – probably unfairly – assumed she meant for me to keep HER reputation intact and unsullied by whispers. when you focus on reputation, you sometimes assume people care more than they actually do. but in a small town, you also know that people can be cruel, and judgements made on the whim of the moment. so you guard yourself…and sometimes, if the weight of public castigation grows too heavy, you become what they already say you are. in a small town, it can be death to be different.
in branding, on the other hand, differentiation is key to success.
i see online identity as a small-town self, acutely aware of the possibility and the consequences of being recognized, meandering about in a truly infinite city of networked relationships. this branded self is at least semi-consciously aware of its goals and its optics; of how it appears to the anybodies passing by the artifacts and traces of itself it shares out here in the ether. the branded self may view connections as personal or instrumental, or both, and is probably inclined to see attention as positive so long as its network doesn’t ostracize it as a result.
in other words, to a branded self, there is no purpose in privacy. all the world’s a stage.
in the four years or so i’ve been reading blogs, one of the most common refrains i’ve heard is “i’m taking down photos/names/poop stories because i don’t want the record i’ve created here to follow my child through life.” wisely, i think, we recognize that in writing of our children, we risk writing them into roles that they themselves may not want to embody. we don’t want them to feel they have to become what we’ve said they are. or at least, we don’t want to appear that way.
but in the post-blogging world of tomorrow, it is almost unthinkable that our kids won’t have online identities far beyond what we’ve written for them. what’s more, i don’t think our concepts of negative attention will have a great deal of meaning to our kids’ generation as they grow into adults, except in those awful, inevitable, pan-human moments where the network – be it the football team or cranky bloggers or politicians and half of twitter – blows up against a particular self in moments of bullying and ostracism and brand-backlash writ large. it’s not likely to happen over potty tales; they’re too universal.
the dance of successful branding is about balancing the creative capacity for difference with the critical capacities for self-judgement and prudent projection of consequences.
our children’s online selves will fluctuate and change as they grow, but teaching them early to leave trails they won’t be dogged by or ashamed of later – because nothing online is truly private, or really goes away – has to be one of the challenges of raising this generation of children for which we’re least prepared. as a culture, i think we’d all benefit from work on critical projection, since more and more of us seem to have no intention of going back under the dome of domestic privacy. and as an educator within this culture, i wonder if one of the greatest conceptual tools we could give kids today would be that sense of big-city network navigation in a small-town, self-aware skin?
then they could build rooms of their own within which to capture their own realities and perspectives, and there hopefully weather storms if/as they arose, all the while understanding in a way our generation is only beginning to taste that no network – no matter how powerful the popular girls seem when one is in junior high, or a mommyblogger – is ever finite, be-all and end-all.
what do YOU see when you look through time? and how do YOU see your online persona? are you a small-town brand or a citified network person by nature? or am i missing something beyond/between that polarization?
29 Responses to “ the future, second verse ”
Comments:
Leave a Reply
Trackbacks & Pingbacks:
-
Pingback from own it | cribchronicles.com
June 8th, 2010 at 9:48 pm[...] tried to write about this a month or so ago. i meandered my way through a big messy post trying to posit that branding – a word many consider vulgar beyond redemption – is a [...]




May 13th, 2010 at 4:29 pm
So it’s the best parts of filiation and affiliation (the one concept I actually retained from Edward Said) brought together in one place? I think you’re onto something…
I started a blog for Bub, mostly as a writing exercise for him, and the value of that exercise is entirely in the way it forces him (much against his will) to conceptualize audience. That’s partly a theory of mind issue – he needs to grasp the concept of explaining his thoughts rather than cryptically alluding to them. But it has also become, on at least one occasion, a matter of concealing sensitive information from “everybody out there.” He wanted to post his teacher’s Webkinz username and password, so I told him that those were secrets and if you post them to your “diary” you can’t stop people from reading them. So, so rudimentary and yet foundational, these lessons.
May 13th, 2010 at 4:56 pm
Bon. This is magnificent. There’s so much to think about here, I need to go away and try to wrap my brain around it. I have some questions, may I come back and ask them when I’ve worked out what they are?!
May 13th, 2010 at 8:15 pm
Bea…see, the connection to Said gives me hope of actually reconfiguring this into an article-style piece, so merci beaucoup. off to dig out my dusty tomes (or wikipedia) and pretend i totally meant filiation and affiliation.
but yes, exactly. i’m hoping kids – and grownups – can learn to think through the consequences of our online actions and be aware of the idea of audience really early. maybe a nice “Big Brother is watching” message? erm, no.
AfterIris…you may always come back. bring cookies.
this post weighs, like, a ton of bricks, doesn’t it? apparently before i go pitching it to anybody, i need to trim.
May 13th, 2010 at 8:22 pm
I started using the Internet at 13. I met my husband online at 13, even! Josh and I both “grew up” online, so to speak, not quite like our kids will…the Internet was much more fragmented in those days, social media was in its infancy. We met on a message board, chat rooms were just starting to pop up. Everything is so much more open and interconnected these days. I just hope that our steps and missteps online will help us to guide our children as they move out into the online world.
May 13th, 2010 at 11:30 pm
I’ve tried to hold this conversation with many others, including Dave, over the last few years. I have yet to find anyone who shares my views. I don’t see identity cultivation as a positive outcome of the social web, quite the opposite. I believe the more we strive to take ownership, the more we are likely to lose.
I can’t help but wonder about educators teaching children their online practices will inform employment decisions. Why would we support and promote blatantly discriminatory hiring practices? Why concentrate on cleansing individual identity, rather than performing public service and allowing a more organic development of reputation, one that is not self-managed?
We’re not going to solve world problems in our own little rooms. When we work so our reputation sorts to the top, who will be pushed to the bottom? It sounds like a lovely thing for technology to enable everyone to have a voice. But what happens to those whose talents lie in other directions? What have we truly taught ourselves to value? Why do we believe it’s okay to encourage people to spend another precious moment behind the screen cultivating “self,” when they could be out in the world nurturing “us.”
I’d prefer to see subversion. I’d rather see kids learn to develop software to displace the behaviorist designs of the current social web. Kids should know how they are being used, and learn to stand up to the powers that have created this future for them, rather than succumbing to the simple and free. We don’t have to let this happen, but there’s no way it will stop as long as we’re modeling territorial self-promotion. Powerful tools in the hands of the privileged…dangerous indeed.
May 14th, 2010 at 12:29 am
Random thoughts because this is huge and so good and it’s 12:20 AM.
First, I actually don’t think of you as a mommyblogger. I know it’s elitist (or something?) to eschew that word but I can’t stand it. You’re a writer. You’re Bon. You’re not a mommyblogger. It’s too small and one-dimensional (and too goofy) to describe what you’ve created here, even when you *do* write about children or motherhood.
I don’t think brand is a dirty word in any way. Once you decide there’s something you want to project or achieve in public writing, you begin branding. Clarity of voice, clarity of space. That’s branding. It’s a maturation. It is a pause and an artfulness that brings dignity to all this. Sometimes it’s profound and calculated. Sometimes it’s just a matter of clutter that’s cast aside, and the pleasant metaphorical (or literal) white space that remains.
As soon as blogging becomes aspirational for a writer, we begin branding. That’s not a matter of facades or falseness. Just clarity and intention.
Earned, owned, paid media. I write about that stuff. I talked about it today. So uncanny that you wrote about it today. My head’s swirling with it. You add to the swirl, as always. xo
May 14th, 2010 at 1:30 am
Whoa so I said we count on you for the micro and the macro mannering of much… Rose to the occasion and then some lady.
[and.. there is a difference between brand and authorship. this is something I want to nuture and support the idea of; the idea. independent publishing is not branding. our words fail us, and its delightful]
May 14th, 2010 at 9:10 am
We, i’m really glad for the input, but i wonder if we’re in the same conversation. or maybe we just see the terms from very different positions?
am curious about what equal playing field you think we’re on now in terms of education and employment practices? i’m no fan of behaviourism, though i actually see at least as much of it in current pedagogies as i do in the implications of the social web…even a social web permeated by business discourse. and i suspect the idea of organic development of reputation may – if it were ever possible – is gone. there have always been privileged discourses and values conflicts in society, and for 30 years education research has shown that kindergarten teachers can fairly accurately predict which of their 5 yr old charges will go to university based on the “schooling literacies” those kids come into the system possessing.
giving kids the awareness that their performances of identity are being witnessed and judged against particular, interrogable societal standards seems more subversive to me.
more, i’m not so interested in focusing solely on voice, in the classic literary sense. if your digital footprint is all pictures of you playing soccer, grand. that’s your room of your own. and hopefully you’ll find other people out there who share that passion. it doesn’t solve everything. it doesn’t mean you shouldn’t volunteer at grandma’s nursing home & instead stay indoors looking at soccer photos ALL the time.
self promotion isn’t necessarily inherently bad. many kids would benefit from learning it. more, kids are going to be leaving trails which shape their reputations all over the internet – why shouldn’t they be taking ownership of that?
i AM wary of the corporate values that the discourse of branding implicitly sells, though…which is why i think understanding it is also more subversive than just pretending it doesn’t permeate our digitized world.
May 14th, 2010 at 9:24 am
Mo-Wo, i’d love to hear more on the differences between brand & authorship.
i, like you & i think We, come from a background of libraries and literature and education, in which “brand” has traditionally been a vulgar word. but i’m not sure it is. i wish there were a better one, but i have problems with the idea of authorship – i’m of the “death of the author” school where i believe text lives out there beyond us, in a reputational kind of way. and brand’s the best word i’ve got right now to discuss that.
i’m open to new ones, though, ones not so polluted with the $-first ethic that brand implies.
Kyran had a piece yesterday on this that struck me and that i want to go back to comment on this morning… http://www.notestoself.us/2010/05/lines-in-sand-redefining-boundaries-in.html
May 14th, 2010 at 10:29 am
Thanks for the shout out, Bon, and for inviting me to this rich discussion you’ve sparked. I’m only on my second cup of coffee this morning, so I’m not sure I’m up to the level of discourse, but here goes nothing. :-)
First, I love the comments by We, though it’s asking for a paradigm shift that’s an ill fit for the western mind. Still, I always appreciate someone offering up an entirely different world view. I’ll be chewing on that one, cud-like, for days, I suspect, before I digest it.
Second, yes, yes, yes to the virtual room of one’s own. That’s exactly what my blog became for me. And it’s precisely because it isn’t an empty room that it has served me so well. Slightly off-topic for here, but something I plan to bring up on my post’s comment thread is how well suited this medium is to an extravert like myself. Empty rooms drain me. An online space provides just enough ambient “noise” to keep me charged and inspired. It would be interesting to see how the aversion to identity branding breaks down between innies and outies.
As for text outliving us, there is the whole question of legacy to consider in this ephemeral sphere. If the words do outlive us, where is their afterlife? In print, MAYBE, if one makes a successful crossover there. But that’s not a foregone extension of blogging, nor should it be. Some of the most influential online voices are neither equipped nor inclined to become authors. Yet they have created these wonderful spaces. So what is the legacy of the space itself? What is it we are building here?
I’m not sure we even have the words.
May 14th, 2010 at 10:42 am
The correspondence between online persona and self is so tiny, though — sometimes I wonder if the two are wholly non-overlapping. I hate the thought that for our children the two may become blurred until they are indistinguishable from one another. I envision a narrowing of our expressive selves until we are only our avatars.
It worries me. Which is why I cling to the archaic 19th century model of education for our kids.
May 14th, 2010 at 10:42 am
There used to be a #platformchat session on Twitter run by @writermama that I think was trying to put a new spin on personal branding.
what do YOU see when you look through time?
I see that this online identity stuff is not going to be relevant in 5 years. Either companies will begin to rate people by their online content, similar to a credit score, or we’ll realize it’s not important as something separate from who we are physically. Then we can be judged in context.
and how do YOU see your online persona? are you a small-town brand or a citified network person by nature? or am i missing something beyond/between that polarization?
I’m working to dissolve the personal branding I’ve had since 1999, and I don’t feel compelled to have a space of my own. My kids have their own domains, but I don’t see any reason for them to use them.
I’d like to see more shared spaces, than “rooms of own.” Think about your flickr account. I love that it’s a shared space, that you don’t always identify who takes the photos.
May 14th, 2010 at 11:22 am
We, i’ll look for the @writermama platform chat. once i figure out how. :) thanks for that.
interesting how differently you and Sarah see the online vs. “real” selves – me, i’m somewhere in between. tho i think in 5 yrs maybe we will be what Dave would call “post-digital” enough to not separate it from who we are physically. but i think the online has to be considered part of our context as well.
i think shared spaces are great. but i don’t think a person enters them without bringing some kind of “brand” or “identity” or whatever – we can call it baggage or aura or influence or “what people read onto us from what we project” – into that space, thus sometimes making others want to come just by virtue of us being there. that’s a factor of human behaviour far older than either social media or behaviourism. i’m trying to follow the projected negative you seem to see in that…can you explain? i just take it as fact that people carry it, both in person and online. and considering it strategically does strike me as something both valuable and potentially dangerous, depending on how broadly the literacies are disseminated.
in the name change to “We”, am i to assume you’re looking for collective rather than individual perspectives for the future? interesting. i have trouble conceiving of collectives except as made up of individuals, so am slow getting my mind around it: Kyran’s right, it IS a paradigm shift. but also a reaction to having taught in collective cultures on a number of occasions and struggled with the veil between me and my students’ outer expressions of groupthink. in some ways the “we” is a forced construct, a mass-colonized mind. or maybe i was just disappointed to discover that “we” cultures don’t necessarily look out for their poor and downtrodden particularly. still. will think about it.
but if you’re not out there writing it anywhere, just participating, then how can i begin to apprehend? ;)
(forgive me for sounding so oppositional. i don’t mean to. i’m just engaged but also confused, trying to struggle to some sort of shared premises)
May 14th, 2010 at 2:42 pm
I think I might use my blog to hack away at the various platforms that try to ground me. So even though my “children” appear on my blog, I try to avoid being limited by the complexities of my fatherhood. If I had to call out my platform, I’d provisionally call it the repressed, until it becomes expressed, after which I get tired of it and it’s no longer a platform. This bleeds into your wonderful description of the city but I like to imagine my blog as a city where I get to meet all the anybodys I might be. There’s plenty of good people in there and they get their due, but they don’t interest me as much as the terrible people. The terrible people have been neglected my whole life, cut off from my ego and when they found my blog, they had – and continue to have – a damn good time. The people who think I’m an asshole are right. But it’s a shame when I have to be identified in a static way with one of the many assholes I might be. Price of admission, I guess. The people who read and stick to my blog tend to have less rigid boundaries between all the anybodys who they might be. So I guess that’s my community. A community of selves with communities inside them. Being who you are gets so old. I’m the last person I want to be on my blog.
May 14th, 2010 at 6:06 pm
These are such interesting comments I had to come back.
BHJ: So if it weren’t for your blog, you’d be the male equivalent of Sybil? Laughing. I like the idea though.
May 14th, 2010 at 8:01 pm
BHJ, that’s a mad train of thought. And I like it. Inner city, indeed.
May 14th, 2010 at 8:36 pm
I see hivemind when people are trying to protect or promote their brands…
I don’t think you’re oppositional. I’m the one with the freaky ideas :) I just put “we” in the 1st message as some kind of artistic expression. I thought it was interesting to talk about shedding identity, and then have a Name(required) field :)
How about this thought…is this really your space? I think it’s mine. You’ve got some bits arranged a certain way you can control, but I completely control the display on my side. I create my own context, weaving in your offerings as it suits me.
Wouldn’t it be a lovely experiment to create an @cribchronicles flickr tag for us all to show you how we’ve invited you into our spaces? Images of our screens, rooms, context. We may be on a mobile device on an airplane, or reading you in a reader between posts that completely affect how we perceive yours. We may be using screen readers, or we may have altered the fonts in our browsers. We may have split screens, or maybe we’ve widgetized your room.
Interestingness :)
Jen
May 14th, 2010 at 9:22 pm
We/Jen…like Kyran said on twitter, sometimes the hivemind feels like jazz, like there’s a swell of something coming and for a second, i played my note and got to hear it hit something bigger.
that’s neither individualism nor communal…somewhere in between, which is what interests me.
in truth, no, i don’t think this is my space. it’s my room, in that i have overt control, like you say. but what i put here lives outside of me. and what you do with it and how you mash it – in your head or on your own screen – well, mostly i’m just happy to be playing in the jazz. i’m big on the death of the author stuff. i think text takes on its own life, and should.
and BHJ, i would like a room big enough that it could be a city, but i’d like to be anonymous to half my own personas. it was actually way easier in real life, when i lived on the other side of the world and my mother couldn’t see me smoking at 4 am.
May 14th, 2010 at 11:52 pm
What do I see when I look through time? An evolution of a better self. My small community was suffocating. I became who I wanted to become once I left the nest. I wouldn’t go back, at least not now. My on-line persona? Pretty much who I am in real life: cranky, happy, exhausted, joyful, irritated, productive, bitchy, sweet, caring, energetic, all rolled into a messy package.
I doubt kids will mind the parent bloggers writing about them. They’d probably find it quite hilarious. Being on-line, can be anonymous. It’s not the same thing as living in a real-life small community. For me, I go on and off Facebook. It’s the only social networking thing I’ve done and choose to do, for a variety of reasons. I don’t go off Facebook because of exposure or that my kids will hate that I posted their pics on it. I go on and off of it, because, well, I run out of things to say.
May 15th, 2010 at 3:15 am
Oh, bon. You blow my mind. Such a great topic. Brand means little to me and i now am starting to understand this. But mychildren? They mean everything. Which is why I speak little of them.
The footprint I leave was always for an express purpose. Fairly morbid one…. In case I am not around when they grow. Are grown. Are here. It started for me with others loss. A friend whose mother passed on before she had her first bebe.. And her wish for letters from her mother. When I started they were small and I wanted to remember it better….I do think I achieved that as when I read back it seems, er, somewhat better than the reality.
I think I know now that my sons will establish some sort of their own identity here in this ether. I cannot even really understand yet what that will look like. But I know the footprint I want to leave for them to follow is one of love for them. Not stuff I liked, though I do like stuff. Not what they did, because eventually all kids learn to sleep and eat and crap in the right place. Just whi their momma is.
Likely they will not have need to read it. But I am a Scorpio and it leands a slant to life…and the word brand makes me think of cows at pasture waiting for slaughter and that makes me as uncomfortable as thinking about dying.
Er, litle drunk. And (shhhhh) having a smoke. Just recreational, you know? Don’t tell.
May 15th, 2010 at 3:24 am
Oh. Just read all previous commenters and thinking they were not inebriated (and stood up like me) like me. Cringing. A little. But still loving where you are going with the writing. And seconding Kate. You are not a mommyblogger. You are a writer. And I’m out.
May 15th, 2010 at 11:48 am
yer killing me over here!!!! yeah authorship is precarious.. or as you desire, my lovely, DEAD. will study. you fight authority and I’ll alphabetize it — drive a stake into my cataloguer’s heart…!
I keep grasping for the lexicon/patchwork to suit best dis-integration. Reputation maybe better. I keep drifting back 2 Lady Catherine’s condescension. That our monolithic IRL selves will instead expand in complexities of identity (internal and inter-social) we put out solely through our fingers as we speak to each other in a some dialect of Copperplate Britannic bold ( I say that as if there are now pictures??? or sounds.)
And, not a jot of oppositional. unequivocal.
This habit you are forming of nailing your treatise to wordpress every 7 to 10 days for us just to step up the challenge with each passing one…. more more more.
May 15th, 2010 at 2:27 pm
Mo-Wo, i’m struggling with the lexicon too. have been mulling over the idea that some of us are traditionally brand-focused where others are reputational-focused, as terms for the difference i mentioned in the last post re blogging goals, beyond simple scale of audience. perhaps that will be my next long treatise nailed to the screen.
you guys all make me smile so much. this is a rambling piece but it has sparked interesting conversation. Mamie, you enjoy that trip. and Jane, between what you said about small town suffocation and BHJ said about selves, i had to take a big breath and ask myself why i came back here in the first place. i become more confined by local parameters every year, and it bewilders me. someday. someday.
please to now picture William Wallace screaming “FreeeDOMMMM!” ack.
May 15th, 2010 at 8:26 pm
“little birdhouses for their souls” – thank you for this memorable phrase. You always give me lots to ponder… not to mention the comments!
May 16th, 2010 at 5:06 pm
I’ve been thinking about this piece so much since I first read it, Bon. I also was really struck by one of your tweets; you said something along the lines of needing a shower after thinking about the business aspect of social media and it’s implications for education. It reminded me of No Logo, and my little socialist heart felt the pitter pat of fear!
My concerns about the shift towards personal branding is less to do with the writer and authorial freedom and more to do with the transformation from blog reader to blog consumer. I wonder if when we become brands and our readers become consumers, there’s a different level of expectation attached to what has become our “product”. Consumers are more cynical; they feel entitled to a certain consistency from the brands they connect with (I’m thinking along the lines of the outrage provoked by the revelation that Dove “love the skin your in” shares a parent company (Unilever) with Pond’s Skin Lightening cream.) If we consume blogs, rather than read them, if these Rooms are subject to a level of scrutiny akin to that of an investor. I remember a while ago, I think it was on Sweet/Salty(?), Kate wrote about seeing a comment on another blog about her appearance at Blogher by someone you talked about her “using” her story, as if Kate were some character, or something more abstract than a real person with real feelings. The idea that our children will perform their emerging identities to a critical, opinionated, comment-enabled group of consumers is fascinating and horrifying to me.
Quick aside, I was shopping today and looking at all the different huddles of teenagers and it reinforced how great kids are clanning themselves: emo, goth, chav, wag, townie, skater(these are all UK tribes, not sure how it translates!). It made me smile.
May 17th, 2010 at 3:53 pm
Hi — I read your post & thought awhile & then had to come back to see what everyone else had said.
Virginia’s Room was a physical place where she could work uninterrupted. A blog is not a place where you’re uninterrupted. A blog can’t keep the phone from ringing or the children from needing you. A blog is not a room; a blog is what you write when you’re in your room.
I believe a blog is comparable to a letter to the editor; and how it relates to Virginia (and feminism; she’s a stand-in for feminism, right?) is that you’re guaranteed to have your letter published. No man stands between you and the “publish” button.
Brand = desired reputation, correct? “Branding” is a company’s attempt to project its desired reputation across all media. If a blogger wants to brand herself, then she has to know how she wants to be perceived. I, at least, had no idea how I wanted to be perceived when I started blogging! I had certain ideas I wanted to convey, but I didn’t consider how people might perceive me, the conveyor of the ideas. Also, even if a blogger knows how she wants to be perceived, most of us are amateurs and don’t know how to consistently convey (in words, in images, in logos) what we want our reputation to be.
I wonder if one mightn’t think of a blogger’s brand as being the online equivalent of clothing. People judge you by your clothing; but the reality of your self can — what’s the word? subvert? override? — the image you project with your clothing. And so it is with a blog.
One other point… I really like the idea of communicating online (not through email; email’s different; but through Facebook and blogs, etc.) equaling a letter to the editor, esp. in a small town newspaper, because EVERYONE KNOWS WHO YOU ARE, and everyone’s talking behind your back about your words. Yesterday there was a brou-ha-ha on the Facebook page of our local ski resort. Some kid wrote a series of comments making frequent usage of the word “douce bag,” among other things, and I would not be at all surprised if the kid is banned from skiing at the resort in the future. Also he’s a sponsored skier for a local outdoor store, or rather (I expect) was. It was just so stupid for that kid to comment the way he did. Didn’t he know is profile is attached to his comments? OTOH if he weren’t 18 I’d suspect his “brand” = “bad ass skiier” and in that case, his comments certainly complied with the brand!
May 18th, 2010 at 9:16 pm
This was great! You know how deeply rooted those hymns are in your head? They are way down in there–right by the olfactory bulbs I would say. Once, when I was pumping milk at work for my first child, an older teacher was playing her hymns while she was doing her paperwork, and when she turned them on, I felt the hymn make my milk let down! No kidding. There was some connection b/t the familiarity of a hymn and my milk. :)
May 21st, 2010 at 10:36 pm
What a wonderful, cogent, thoughtful post.